The Legal Flaw With Ditching DACA Administrative Procedure Act Magna Carta

Part 2, from,Who Are The Founders For DACA? ,President Donald Trump’s decision to end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program has been criticized, by Democrats and Republicans alike, as “cruel,” “inhumane” and “unconscionable.” It is also quite likely illegal. The decision is being implemented in a way that appears to violate the Administrative Procedure Act, and the courts might well block the Trump administration’s action on those grounds.

 The Administrative Procedure Act, sometimes called the “Magna Carta of administrative law,” is a 1946 statute that governs hundreds of federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security. It requires that agencies go through a process known as “notice and comment” before issuing, amending or repealing “substantive rules.” As part of that process, the agency must publish proposed actions in the Federal Register and then give the public at least 30 days to submit feedback. When it finalizes its proposal, the agency must respond to issues raised by the public comments and must explain why it settled upon the course of action that it chose. The explanation must show why the agency’s action is reasonable and not “arbitrary” or “capricious.”

 In hundreds of cases, the federal courts have had to decide what counts as a “substantive rule” to which the notice-and-comment requirement applies. In a nutshell, a substantive rule is an agency action that alters the rights or interests of parties, changes the background regulatory regime and has a present and binding effect. Sometimes, agencies will take actions that do all of these things but are labeled as “policy statements” rather than “substantive rules.” In those cases, federal courts will block the agency from carrying through on its policy until it goes through the notice-and-comment process.

 That’s what’s likely to happen here. On Tuesday, Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke sent a memo to other officials in her department regarding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. Since its inception in 2012, DACA has allowed more than 800,000 undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States before their 16th birthday to obtain work permits and certain other benefits. Immigrants eligible for DACA, known as Dreamers, must file an application with DHS and must seek renewal of their status every two years.

 That will now change. Duke’s memo says that “[e]ffective immediately,” DHS will “reject all DACA initial requests” filed after Tuesday. It goes on to say that the department will “reject all DACA renewal requests” received after October 5 of this year. The memo has all the signs of a substantive rule. It alters the rights of Dreamers, who now cannot obtain work permits and other privileges associated with deferred action status (such as Social Security benefits). In so doing, it changes the background regulatory regime. And as the memo makes clear, it has a present and binding effect on DHS officials and on hundreds of thousands of Dreamers.

 Since it announces a substantive rule, the memo is subject to the notice-and-comment requirement. But DHS has given no indication that it intends to go through the notice-and-comment process here. Instead, Acting Secretary Duke has moved ahead without giving the public 30 days to submit feedback. That’s a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and it would give a federal court a basis for blocking the department from carrying through on its new substantive rule.

 There is, to be sure, a wrinkle in this argument. The wrinkle is that then- DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano did not go through notice and comment when she announced the DACA policy by memorandum back in 2012. The Trump administration will likely say that if DACA didn’t need to go through notice and comment initially, then DHS shouldn’t have to go through notice and comment now when it rescinds DACA. And if DACA ­did­­ need to go through notice and comment initially, then DACA itself is procedurally invalid and should be set aside on those grounds.

Views: 97

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Lets see if they can slap this around again, nice real nice.

Yep,

LOL Tif

I have read all three of the DACA Information posted here, I am puzzled why the reports did not include all the information?

 Thank you Tif for making a honest report.

Your welcome.

LOL Tif

The Administrative Procedures Act doesn't provide the President or the Administration with the right to VIOLATE THE STATUTORY LAW... it allows the Administration to promulgate regulations and  procedures that aid in implementing the laws as written... nothing more.

Mr. Nelson,

 The Administrative Procedures Act, is not what is being challenged, President Trump, has turned this issue over to Congress for a Convention of States, something that Obama, refused to do.

 It is now in the hands of Congress, Trump gave then the middle finger, And as of today, DACA is still in part blocked.

 The Constitutional Authority has all ways been in a Convention, and one man even the President Of The United States is not above the Constitution. This goes for the EU, and them within the United Nations.

Good morning Ronald,

 Its Freezing, totally cold this morning. As for The Administrative Procedures Act, I kind of shared that the left nuts was using the Magna Carta, as a Ruling Class "ding bat's" way in laws, but that will be shared in a few.

LOL Tif

Now, this is how I found out about this blog and the lefty nutty Magna Carta, I was nosey...:)

How The DACA Dump Might Be Ditched By The Courts- YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lno6WDq_fjw

There is area under the video, so I followed the links to this blog: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/the-legal-flaw-w...

The I cased searched this Google "

Article 39 of Magna Carta in particular stands at the head of our constitutional understanding of the due process of law. It barred prerogative or administrative adjudication, by which rulers evaded the regular processes of the courts.Mar 23, 2016": https://www.google.com/search?q=Magna+Carta+of+Administrative+Law&a...

I have check into the sites you presented, you are correct in this presentation.

Thank you Mrs. Morgan, I will need to read more about this.

Part 2 In Your Face

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

ALERT ALERT

Breaking:  FBI Admits Comey Leaked Memos 
 That Were Classified   Material! 

The FBI turned over the Comey memos to Congress today after missing their deadline earlier in the week.

Congressional leaders threatened to impeach deep state leaders if they continued to stall on the memos.

Fired FBI Chief James Comey wrote about the memos in his book and leaked the documents to reporters last year. Congress has not yet had a chance to look at the memos — Until tonight.

AND—– THE MEMOS ARE CLASSIFIED!

Meaning Fired FBI Chief James Comey leaked CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS TO THE PRESS.

From the report:

From the DOJ to Congress:

Therefore, pursuant to your request, we are providing the requested memoranda in both the redacted and unredacted formats for your convenience. Consistent with your request, we are providing an unclassified version of the documents redacted to remove any classified information.

The DOJ wrote Congressional leaders this evening.

page 2

Hannity: Good news for Trump, crushing blows for the left

GOP Congressional Leaders Nunes, Gowdy And Goodlatte Release Statement On Comey Memos

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Ca.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) issued a statement on the memos later tonight.

The House chairmen note that the memos prove that fired Director Comey never felt obstructed or threatened from his relationship with the president.

And… former Director Comey leaked at least one of these memos for the stated purpose of spurring the appointment of Special Counsel.

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence published the statement tonight:

Today House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Ca.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) issued the following statement:

“We have long argued former Director Comey’s self-styled memos should be in the public domain, subject to any classification redactions. These memos are significant for both what is in them and what is not.

Former Director Comey’s memos show the President made clear he wanted allegations of collusion, coordination, and conspiracy between his campaign and Russia fully investigated. The memos also made clear the ‘cloud’ President Trump wanted lifted was not the Russian interference in the 2016 election cloud, rather it was the salacious, unsubstantiated allegations related to personal conduct leveled in the dossier.

The memos also show former Director Comey never wrote that he felt obstructed or threatened. While former Director Comey went to great lengths to set dining room scenes, discuss height requirements, describe the multiple times he felt complimented, and myriad other extraneous facts, he never once mentioned the most relevant fact of all, which was whether he felt obstructed in his investigation.

The memos also make certain what has become increasingly clear of late: former Director Comey has at least two different standards in his interactions with others. He chose not to memorialize conversations with President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, Secretary Clinton, Andrew McCabe or others, but he immediately began to memorialize conversations with President Trump. It is significant former Director Comey made no effort to memorialize conversations with former Attorney General Lynch despite concerns apparently significant enough to warrant his unprecedented appropriation of the charging decision away from her and the Department of Justice in July of 2016.

These memos also lay bare the notion that former Director Comey is not motivated by animus. He was willing to work for someone he deemed morally unsuited for office, capable of lying, requiring of personal loyalty, worthy of impeachment, and sharing the traits of a mob boss. Former Director Comey was willing to overlook all of the aforementioned characteristics in order to keep his job. In his eyes, the real crime was his own firing.

The memos show Comey was blind to biases within the FBI and had terrible judgment with respect to his deputy Andrew McCabe. On multiple occasions he, in his own words, defended the character of McCabe after President Trump questioned McCabe.

Finally, former Director Comey leaked at least one of these memos for the stated purpose of spurring the appointment of Special Counsel, yet he took no steps to spur the appointment of Special Counsel when he had significant concerns about the objectivity of the Department of Justice under Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

As we have consistently said, rather than making a criminal case for obstruction or interference with an ongoing investigation, these memos would be Defense Exhibit A should such a charge be made.”

YES PATRIOT STORE

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service